I just finished playing La Pucelle: Tactics (again) and am working through Disagea again. I like these games because they are amusing and fun to play. I'm a fan of turn-based strategy games anyways (where have you all gone though!?). These two games are sprite based games for the PS2. The PS2 is way more powerful than this shows. These guys seem sold out half the time I check out the local game stores. So I agree, I want to see more games with great gameplay instead of with amazing graphics.

And I dare to say that the majority is of the opposite opinion. Good game play is great but so is good graphics. If the graphics is not great, people will complain no matter how good the rest is. Eye candy is important these days.

Unless you have a one hit wonder on your hands games are always going to be criticized by people. Unfortunetly I see it that you have to have at least some good gameplay then graphics just add onto it, and you can't have it the otherway around. I think most people get caught up in one side, and either way your going loose it. It's just like corporate business, between having a good product and advertising the product.

KenD Wrote:And I dare to say that the majority is of the opposite opinion. Good game play is great but so is good graphics. If the graphics is not great, people will complain no matter how good the rest is. Eye candy is important these days.

Which is why we see so many console games these days that are just badly done copies of a previous game, with still yet shinier graphics.. and Microsoft coming out with the second generation of a console less than 5 years after the first generation.

It's also why we need the indie game industry so badly.

That said, yeah, there's something to be said for Ohh Shiny even given that good gameplay should be the basis of any game

Dan Potter Wrote:Which is why we see so many console games these days that are just badly done copies of a previous game, with still yet shinier graphics.. and Microsoft coming out with the second generation of a console less than 5 years after the first generation.

It's also why we need the indie game industry so badly.

The irony here is that most of the indie world (if you define indie as anything but big-budget games) with the exception of some really great ones like Gish, does the exact same thing as the not-so-indie world, which is just to rip off old ideas without much innovation. I don't blame those developers, either- the indie games that sell the best are "yet-another-tetris/snood/columns ripoff" and since indie developers are often part-time, it's difficult to both design and program something brand new.

There are some really great things coming out of big studios, too, like Viewtiful Joe and Katamari Damacy (in recent memory.) Of course, pick any type of media and the standard rule that 99% of everything is crap always applies.

True, true... I stand chastened I can't say a whole lot being as how the one game I've actually had published was one of those "like X, but with Y!". That game was interesting for another reason entirely though.

But still, you have to admit that there's been a huge push in the larger industry for more and more impressive graphics, while there are only a few people who are pushing for innovation in gameplay (those examples you gave are great, as are most things from Mr. Miyamoto ). It's one of the reasons why it's incredibly hard / almost impossible for new people to break into that industry. The barrier of entry is just too high now when you need artists making multi-1000 poly models to compete on the looks.

I agree with Dan Potter. It's very difficult, if not impossible, for indie developers to come anywhere near close to the level of big commercial games. Just game assets alone is a huge (literally) deal. High poly models and high res textures take a lot of time to produce. A game of some complexity also takes a lot of time to develop. It's simply out of reach for the one or few guys team. At least if you want to finish the game within a year or two. Just creating levels can take a lot of time.

Our current game in development, Deep Trouble 2, has been in development for almost a year now and the amount of graphics is just enormous. Creating and setting up all of this has taken a lot of time. Level creation always seems to take much more time than one would imagine. A complex game usually requires an advanced editor to help in the content creation too and developing it takes time.

All of this is fun of course, but my point is that it's difficult for small developers to create games with the level of graphics and content gamers have come to expect. And if it doesn't look great, many won't bother trying it.

I totally agree with this. However im not sure its such a bad thing. Just like any medium the aesthetic quality of the work (usually) mimics the overall quality of the work.

If someone puts a lot of care and work into textures, lighting, models, etc... chances are they put the same amount of work into gameplay, performance, etc... Although this isnt always the case, it seems as good a guide to use as any.

There was a long silence...
'I claim them all,' said the Savage at last.

1) good ideas beat good graphics for long term. If you want a game that is popular 4-5 years down the line, then your game better have some decent ideas behind it. Graphics will always advance forward, get better, or more stylistic, but a good idea can do so much more for a game and industry.

that being said
2) let me cite mario 3. This game has (we are talking at the time) extraordinary graphics and a well thought out idea. There have been a few games recently that have had extraordinary graphics and good game idea (viewtiful joe comes to mind). but to rely on graphics alone... well... why not just make a movie?

3) in conclusion, idea will get you innovation points and replay value. graphics will get your audience initial attention.

skyhawk Wrote:but to rely on graphics alone... well... why not just make a movie?

I've got what I consider to be a pretty good book on design theory here, and this is one point he stresses over and over.. make sure you're in the right medium. A game is a toy, interactive, the player's in control. If the player is slogging through a linear story and the story is more the point of the game, you're in the wrong medium. He had a name for this, I think it was like "wanna-be writer syndrome". In other words, if you want to be a writer... write books. If you want to be a visual motion arts person, make movies. You can put those skills to use in making a good game, but so many these days *cough*FFX*cough* are just a movie that you have to work to see more of.

there is NOTHING wrong with a linear story line, but it must be interactive. Example: Streets of Rage. simple fight through the level type play, but damn if it isn't fun. or at least I had a lot of fun playing it with my friends.
a good rpg with a pretty linear storyline: shining force 2.

I don't know, I'm slightly turned off on the whole "this game can have thousands of different endings" (exception of World of Warcraft) idea. Sometimes, I'd like my game to have a very definitive storyline which I am playing through.

Yeah, I was trying to make an "if" and not an "if and only if" type statement. A linear story line doesn't imply a boring game. It's the way they use it. Some of the most boring games I've played are just basically linear story lines with some "hit a button once in a while and wander around to find the next cut scene" thrown in (I mentioned FFX, but Xenosaga comes to mind too...)

I'm being overly simplistic and using hyperbole here, but I think people do overuse the linear story line as a basis for the whole game.